Bowers v. DeVito refuted - Help!

[Free Radical]

"You are talking about an issue that is specifically confined to states rights in order to prevent federal law enforcement from interfering in common law jurisdiction.
The ruling was to point out this was a state prison issue, not a federal issue, and that once a prisoner is released the government has limited powers to prevent them from doing harm.
Every state has their own constitution which outlines what level of protection will be afforded to citizens and the areas that exist which allow federal law enforcement to usurp states rights are written into federal law. This is outlined in the cases following the parts of the section you quoted."

How should I answer this guy? Did a quick search of the boards but couldn't find anything.

[lummox2]

And?

So what?

"Prove that these states exist and then your point stands. "

(Enclose a picture of "the US" from space with a big red crayon LEGOLAND written on it, to hammer home the point.)

Stick to the facts, imo.

[Free Radical]

Yes I tried that ages ago but it didn't go down so well - www.essembly.com/resolves/9206 ;D

But he is criticising our interpretation of the Bowers case. Does it say the state never has a duty to protect? That is what we use to prove, in a legal context, that there is no state. ie - No duty to protect => no reciprocal duty of allegiance => no contract =>no citizens => no body politic => no state.

"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. . . . The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order. . ." ~ Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616;

Or is this just a special case as he has argued?

[lummox2]

Who cares?

What state?

You can't prove anything in a legal context, it's 100% opinion. Fo rthe other side, too. What's a charter? What's a state? What's a case? Didn't you just say x, which contradicts y?

And so forth.....

I mean, you CAN take a position, providing you don't mind dropping it at any moment. (remember they have to look vaguely consistent but you can just say you changed your mind, your not calling on the magical nature of the written word) They have rules, you don't.

The more ridiculous you make the initial position (providing your not in court ofc although there is a chance of it working there probably seeing as there nothing special about court at all) the easier it is to get them to take a position. "Bowers vs. DeVito, clearly states that you have to buy me a new convertabile."

"No? Oh ok, can you tell me what it does say then? I am confused....." And back to the verbal Aikido we go.....

[Freeborn]

I wonder what are all those state rights where no such absurdity thing exist?
It is imposture to think that men can possibly interact with fictions.

www.adventuresinlegalland.com/hatesfreedom.html

Here also a reading suggestion on the powerful work of Lysander Spooner lysanderspooner.org/

Free Radical: Can you endeavoring and tell me exactly who are supporting the constitution and who are not? How is it possible to know such thing when ballot is done secretly, for this simple reason, it is impossible to anybody to tell who are supporting and who are not supporting such ridicule contract. The worst thing is no such deception could bind or restrict anybody—and it is baloney to accept as well as legitimate that man have to relinquish all his unimaginable limitless irrevocable absolute natural God’s given rights which assures him life, liberty and full happiness—to get inexistent constitutional protection or civil privilege—as it is fecal to think that any supernatural man has full right or power to violate your life at will.
All this is Martial Tyranny.

I bona fide contract need to have upon it the entire contractors signature and never in this world such contract will restrain a man of his life, liberty, and happiness.

I'm sure you knew all this; I just wanted to bring the point of all the chaotic tyrannical unthinkable fiction which ``government`` created in the intention of eradicate, and deny, to all human being their natural right of: life, liberty, and happiness. And if you are opposed to this way of thinking or this way of doing business, you will find yourself shot because they will certainly deem it was necessary. They want us dead or slave it is obvious.



Cheers

[eye2i2hear]

Free Rad,

Just for the arguments sake (aka the 'amuse'ment sake), i hear the court case "Stating" clearly there is no CONstitutional "duty of protection", yet the CONstitution uses the term "citizen"; wherein the legal dictionaries have said that citizenship is the reciprocal, equitable duties (to protect = allegiance to)

As with all things in LegaLand of course, The Humpty Dumpty Principle* is ever in affect; thus what the legal terms mean on any given day-- including past and present --are up to the word artists (aka CON artists) --and yes, even those words in print. After all, if one agrees that something that doesn't factually exist, does exist and even rules, then hey, anything goes after that point-- settled of course ultimately by the point of the barrel of the gun.

As to the State of flux of terms, Black's Law Dictionary now its 8th edition, reveals just such. Black's 7th Edition for example has this:

Citizen. One who, under the Constitution, and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of a political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights.

[Black's then quotes the 14th Amenment, with a notation so see Citizenship]
continuing:

"Citizens" are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.

note: the quotes around citizen are in the dictionary; i'll leave it to you to determine of what, if any, significance that is; by comparison, under the entry for Citizenship, the word citizen also appears but has no quote marks!

By comparison, Ballentine's Law Dictionary 3rd Edition under Citizenship has:

The privilege of membership in a political society, implying a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society... 3 Am J2d Aliens S113

All sort of goodie questions arise with this last version; like, "membership"-- how does that happen/what does it entail?

And like, does the likes of "society" legally = State (or United States)? ditto Black's "political community"? Are we up for making legal determiNations?

I've posited in other threads here my questions regarding just how many "citizens" there legally are/can be. And i hold that the 14th Amendment actually IS a definition of the term "citizen" based upon the actions of people buying into the fiction of The U.S. Those actions being summed up in the key word therein: "subject". [by contrast, the 14th Amendment has "citizens of The United States"; where Black's Law Dictionary has under "United States: The term has several meanings." So follow the white rabbit and let him tell you as you go?]

* The Humpty Dumpty Principle:
"I don't know what you mean by "glory"?" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't-- till I tell you. I meant "here's a nice knock-down argument for you!"
"But glory doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument!'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-- that's all."
And what does "outgrabe" mean?' [Alice continued]
'Well, "outgrabing" is something between bellowing and whistling, with a kind of sneeze in the middle; however you'll hear it done, maybe - down in the wood yonder - and, when you've once heard it, you'll be quite content."
"Who's been repeating all that hard stuff to you?"
"I read it in a book," said Alice." --Through The Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll (Alice In Wonderland)

ps: Marc's recent notation on his radio show regarding Washington State's Constitution specifically stating what the purpose of Government is certainly is interesting in noting Black's definition's inclusion: "the protection of [the citizen's] individual as well as collective rights".
Which of course armed robbery called taxation immediately violates!

[lummox2]

"You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. "

Whaddya mean theres no omelette.....or eggs..... or chef.....why I oughta.....!

[marc stevens]

Bowers is only one case out of hundreds (google to find more). It clearly states there is no duty to protect. There are many statutes saying the same thing. Using the "law" is only one way though.

Factually, how where the alleged duties created? Is the service provided on a voluntary or compulsory basis? Compulsory. Therefore, no duties exist regardless of what a gang of lawyers say.

[Darren Dirt]

When I read this thread, my first thought was "How about getting your 'own' state, AND federal, 'representative' to answer a question publicly "on the record" along the lines of: Okay, is it the FEDERAL government's duty to protect me against loss of life liberty and property, or is it the STATE government's duty to do it?"

( and, of course, "What is the factual basis for your opinion, i.e. when/where/how did that duty come into being, and more importantly, what is the remedy/liability for failure to perform that duty?" ;D )

[eye2i2hear]

darrendirt said:

( and, of course, "What is the factual basis for your opinion...?" )

Double D used the "f" word!!!!

;D

[eye2i2hear]

admin said:

It clearly states there is no duty to protect.

but we know from Their actions there IS a "duty to protect"...
...protect the status quo = The StateU.S. quotas!

and by THE STATE (as BY GOD!) They have that "right" to protect!!

[incometaxfreenut]

Their only duty to protect is to protect their public employe's. The Constitutions are glorified contracts. You and I are not "We, The People" in that we have not signed the original document/contract, and all public employe contracts I have seen have the clause somewherein that the signer will obey/uphold the legislative statutes/constitutions. It is propaganda on the part of many that law enforcement is to protect the general populace.. Article 10 of the bill of rights has it that both the state, and individual have the same rights/powers though not enumerated. What do you think the right to own a gun is for, so what if you have the philosophy of some "resist not evil" "do good to them that despitefully use you". I read the govt law briefing in a case where a man sued the sheriff of the county for neglecting to protect him from some men with automatic weapons who took off with a lot of his personal goods. The man had called the sheriff, and was told that there was no obligation on their part to place themselves in danger. All sorts of case law that the govt did not have to protect non-governmental individual. I would like to relocate the same kind of law briefing as my copy of the mans cases was stolen some time ago.

[Darren Dirt]

incometaxfreenut said:

Their only duty to protect is to protect their public employe's.

Jack McLamb was a guest on "Outside the Box with Alex Ansary" (search on Google Video) -- Officer McLamb talked about how cops are being trained in the last few decades. Yeah they have a "duty" to protect... to protect the MYTHOLOGY of statism, of a separate class of Enforcers vs. the Enforcees (i.e. *all of us*)

Episode 42, I think it was... <-- disturbing info, but important to be aware of.


Might also be useful info in #68

[enesedew]

Buy Prednisone <a href="http://mewkid.net/order-prednisone/">Prednisone 20 Mg</a> dvc.iszp.thereisnostate.proboards.com.tnx.ji mewkid.net/order-prednisone/

[ubadalewol]

Prednisone 20mg <a href="http://mewkid.net/order-prednisone/">Prednisone Without Dr Prescription</a> vpw.hfwt.thereisnostate.proboards.com.emi.sb mewkid.net/order-prednisone/